Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Implications of determinism

Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 6:18:13 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
I'm hoping I can get answers from people better versed in philosophy than I am...

-If determinism is true, does it invalidate the possible world model used in modal logic?
-Similar to the first question: If determinism is true, does it mean all knowledge, a priori or a posteriori, is non-contingent? (I think the answer is no, but then I'm not sure about my answer.)
-Given that the computations involved in computing the future of the universe in its entirety exceeds the computational power possible in a universe, i.e. Laplace's demon is impossible to construct, does this necessitate an agnostic position on the free will/determinism debate?
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 2:53:32 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/10/2016 6:18:13 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I'm hoping I can get answers from people better versed in philosophy than I am...

-If determinism is true, does it invalidate the possible world model used in modal logic?

No, possible worlds are causally isolated from each other.

-Similar to the first question: If determinism is true, does it mean all knowledge, a priori or a posteriori, is non-contingent? (I think the answer is no, but then I'm not sure about my answer.)

For that all possible worlds would have to be qualitatively identical, so no.

-Given that the computations involved in computing the future of the universe in its entirety exceeds the computational power possible in a universe, i.e. Laplace's demon is impossible to construct, does this necessitate an agnostic position on the free will/determinism debate?

Real time computing surely is impossible, but a "slow motion" computation might not be.
We have free will regardless of whether this world is deterministic or not.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 8:21:20 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/10/2016 6:18:13 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I'm hoping I can get answers from people better versed in philosophy than I am...

-If determinism is true, does it invalidate the possible world model used in modal logic?

I'm not quite sure what the argument there is, but I don't see why it would.

-Similar to the first question: If determinism is true, does it mean all knowledge, a priori or a posteriori, is non-contingent? (I think the answer is no, but then I'm not sure about my answer.)

If determinism is true, then every state of the universe is absolutely explicable in terms of its prior state. That implies total contingency, not non-contingency.

-Given that the computations involved in computing the future of the universe in its entirety exceeds the computational power possible in a universe, i.e. Laplace's demon is impossible to construct, does this necessitate an agnostic position on the free will/determinism debate?

Our inability to predict the future doesn't preserve free will as a viable notion. It's simply irrelevant. What's important is whether or not our "choices" are merely deterministic functions of the universe we are forced to inhabit. If, according to the universe, there's only one way things can play out, then we are "free" to behave in exactly the way the universe dictates, but not in any other way. When faced with this fact, some people resort to the argument that "Well, we are still behaving in the way we want to behave". Under determinism, the way we want to behave would also be a determinate function of physical laws. You think you have choices, but there's merely due to your ignorance. If you were smart and honest enough, you would just resign to your fate and stop pretending as though you had options, because at the end of the day, options are precisely what determinism rules out. If determinism is true, you COULD behave differently...if the universe were different, which it isn't, and which you have no control over anyway.
SarcasticMethod
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 2:26:58 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/10/2016 6:18:13 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I'm hoping I can get answers from people better versed in philosophy than I am...

-If determinism is true, does it invalidate the possible world model used in modal logic?
Well, determinism means that there is only one possible world, so yes.
-Similar to the first question: If determinism is true, does it mean all knowledge, a priori or a posteriori, is non-contingent? (I think the answer is no, but then I'm not sure about my answer.)
Yes and no. There are facts that are contingent on other facts, but those other facts are certain, so their descendant facts are also certain. It depends on whether you consider contingency to require the existence of other possibilities.
-Given that the computations involved in computing the future of the universe in its entirety exceeds the computational power possible in a universe, i.e. Laplace's demon is impossible to construct, does this necessitate an agnostic position on the free will/determinism debate?
Not exactly. We can't empirically prove or disprove determinism/free will because of that, but there may be a logical a priori proof for or against it. I am determinism-agnostic, but I have logical a priori reason for thinking that free will does not exist: http://www.debate.org...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 1:51:45 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Thanks for the replies everyone :)
At 1/10/2016 2:53:32 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 1/10/2016 6:18:13 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I'm hoping I can get answers from people better versed in philosophy than I am...

-If determinism is true, does it invalidate the possible world model used in modal logic?
Okay, thanks.

No, possible worlds are causally isolated from each other.
-Similar to the first question: If determinism is true, does it mean all knowledge, a priori or a posteriori, is non-contingent? (I think the answer is no, but then I'm not sure about my answer.)

For that all possible worlds would have to be qualitatively identical, so no.

-Given that the computations involved in computing the future of the universe in its entirety exceeds the computational power possible in a universe, i.e. Laplace's demon is impossible to construct, does this necessitate an agnostic position on the free will/determinism debate?

Real time computing surely is impossible, but a "slow motion" computation might not be.
So do you mean that, for example, to predict what will happen in a second, the machine takes two seconds?
We have free will regardless of whether this world is deterministic or not.
I agree.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 2:12:18 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/10/2016 8:21:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/10/2016 6:18:13 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I'm hoping I can get answers from people better versed in philosophy than I am...

-If determinism is true, does it invalidate the possible world model used in modal logic?

I'm not quite sure what the argument there is, but I don't see why it would.
I thought for a moment that, if determinism is true, maybe possible worlds other than the one matching truth are not just contrary to fact but also logically inconsistent. Don't worry, I've sobered up now lol.
-Similar to the first question: If determinism is true, does it mean all knowledge, a priori or a posteriori, is non-contingent? (I think the answer is no, but then I'm not sure about my answer.)

If determinism is true, then every state of the universe is absolutely explicable in terms of its prior state. That implies total contingency, not non-contingency.
Eh? That makes sense I guess. So everything is contingent, but all depend on whatever state the universe was in at its genesis?
-Given that the computations involved in computing the future of the universe in its entirety exceeds the computational power possible in a universe, i.e. Laplace's demon is impossible to construct, does this necessitate an agnostic position on the free will/determinism debate?

Our inability to predict the future doesn't preserve free will as a viable notion. It's simply irrelevant. What's important is whether or not our "choices" are merely deterministic functions of the universe we are forced to inhabit. If, according to the universe, there's only one way things can play out, then we are "free" to behave in exactly the way the universe dictates, but not in any other way. When faced with this fact, some people resort to the argument that "Well, we are still behaving in the way we want to behave". Under determinism, the way we want to behave would also be a determinate function of physical laws. You think you have choices, but there's merely due to your ignorance. If you were smart and honest enough, you would just resign to your fate and stop pretending as though you had options, because at the end of the day, options are precisely what determinism rules out. If determinism is true, you COULD behave differently...if the universe were different, which it isn't, and which you have no control over anyway.
Thanks, and I agree that whether we can predict the future doesn't say anything about whether the universe is deterministic, but my question was more of an... epistemological one. If it is not theoretically possible to build Laplace's Demon, will we never know whether determinism is true?
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 2:34:24 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 2:26:58 AM, SarcasticMethod wrote:
At 1/10/2016 6:18:13 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I'm hoping I can get answers from people better versed in philosophy than I am...

-If determinism is true, does it invalidate the possible world model used in modal logic?
Well, determinism means that there is only one possible world, so yes.
-Similar to the first question: If determinism is true, does it mean all knowledge, a priori or a posteriori, is non-contingent? (I think the answer is no, but then I'm not sure about my answer.)
Yes and no. There are facts that are contingent on other facts, but those other facts are certain, so their descendant facts are also certain. It depends on whether you consider contingency to require the existence of other possibilities.
-Given that the computations involved in computing the future of the universe in its entirety exceeds the computational power possible in a universe, i.e. Laplace's demon is impossible to construct, does this necessitate an agnostic position on the free will/determinism debate?
Not exactly. We can't empirically prove or disprove determinism/free will because of that, but there may be a logical a priori proof for or against it. I am determinism-agnostic, but I have logical a priori reason for thinking that free will does not exist: http://www.debate.org...
I'd like to ask a question about your argument... You defined free will as the making of a choice from within, but aren't sexual and cibarious desires from within? And doesn't India's situation interact, for example, with his internal values and principles to create his decision to liberate India?
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
SarcasticMethod
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 4:14:40 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 2:34:24 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 1/11/2016 2:26:58 AM, SarcasticMethod wrote:
At 1/10/2016 6:18:13 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I'm hoping I can get answers from people better versed in philosophy than I am...

-If determinism is true, does it invalidate the possible world model used in modal logic?
Well, determinism means that there is only one possible world, so yes.
-Similar to the first question: If determinism is true, does it mean all knowledge, a priori or a posteriori, is non-contingent? (I think the answer is no, but then I'm not sure about my answer.)
Yes and no. There are facts that are contingent on other facts, but those other facts are certain, so their descendant facts are also certain. It depends on whether you consider contingency to require the existence of other possibilities.
-Given that the computations involved in computing the future of the universe in its entirety exceeds the computational power possible in a universe, i.e. Laplace's demon is impossible to construct, does this necessitate an agnostic position on the free will/determinism debate?
Not exactly. We can't empirically prove or disprove determinism/free will because of that, but there may be a logical a priori proof for or against it. I am determinism-agnostic, but I have logical a priori reason for thinking that free will does not exist: http://www.debate.org...
I'd like to ask a question about your argument... You defined free will as the making of a choice from within, but aren't sexual and cibarious desires from within?
Well, what I mean to say is that even desires that are part of human nature can be traced to the genetic input of your ancestry.
And doesn't India's situation interact, for example, with his internal values and principles to create his decision to liberate India?
All internal values and principles have external origins.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 8:26:33 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 2:12:18 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 1/10/2016 8:21:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Our inability to predict the future doesn't preserve free will as a viable notion. It's simply irrelevant. What's important is whether or not our "choices" are merely deterministic functions of the universe we are forced to inhabit. If, according to the universe, there's only one way things can play out, then we are "free" to behave in exactly the way the universe dictates, but not in any other way. When faced with this fact, some people resort to the argument that "Well, we are still behaving in the way we want to behave". Under determinism, the way we want to behave would also be a determinate function of physical laws. You think you have choices, but there's merely due to your ignorance. If you were smart and honest enough, you would just resign to your fate and stop pretending as though you had options, because at the end of the day, options are precisely what determinism rules out. If determinism is true, you COULD behave differently...if the universe were different, which it isn't, and which you have no control over anyway.
Thanks, and I agree that whether we can predict the future doesn't say anything about whether the universe is deterministic, but my question was more of an... epistemological one. If it is not theoretically possible to build Laplace's Demon, will we never know whether determinism is true?

I don't think so. Determinism could be observed in many other ways as well. Like, if all of our observations perfectly conform to deterministic models, then we could be pretty sure that determinism is true without having to model the *entire* universe.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 10:01:22 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Real time computing surely is impossible, but a "slow motion" computation might not be.
So do you mean that, for example, to predict what will happen in a second, the machine takes two seconds?

Basically, yes. Its not all about prediction though, recreation of events works just as well.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,866
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 10:49:18 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/11/2016 4:14:40 PM, SarcasticMethod wrote:
At 1/11/2016 2:34:24 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 1/11/2016 2:26:58 AM, SarcasticMethod wrote:
At 1/10/2016 6:18:13 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I'm hoping I can get answers from people better versed in philosophy than I am...

-If determinism is true, does it invalidate the possible world model used in modal logic?
Well, determinism means that there is only one possible world, so yes.
-Similar to the first question: If determinism is true, does it mean all knowledge, a priori or a posteriori, is non-contingent? (I think the answer is no, but then I'm not sure about my answer.)
Yes and no. There are facts that are contingent on other facts, but those other facts are certain, so their descendant facts are also certain. It depends on whether you consider contingency to require the existence of other possibilities.
-Given that the computations involved in computing the future of the universe in its entirety exceeds the computational power possible in a universe, i.e. Laplace's demon is impossible to construct, does this necessitate an agnostic position on the free will/determinism debate?
Not exactly. We can't empirically prove or disprove determinism/free will because of that, but there may be a logical a priori proof for or against it. I am determinism-agnostic, but I have logical a priori reason for thinking that free will does not exist: http://www.debate.org...
I'd like to ask a question about your argument... You defined free will as the making of a choice from within, but aren't sexual and cibarious desires from within?
Well, what I mean to say is that even desires that are part of human nature can be traced to the genetic input of your ancestry.
And doesn't India's situation interact, for example, with his internal values and principles to create his decision to liberate India?
All internal values and principles have external origins.
You mind elaborating on what you mean by this?...."have external origins".....since values and principles are words and thoughts, are you saying people HAVE to get them from intelligent minds or do we ,say ,get them from gorillas or hippos or bees or plants? Just wondering where you're getting this assertion from, internally or externally?
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,866
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 9:39:59 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/11/2016 4:14:40 PM, SarcasticMethod wrote:
At 1/11/2016 2:34:24 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 1/11/2016 2:26:58 AM, SarcasticMethod wrote:
At 1/10/2016 6:18:13 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I'm hoping I can get answers from people better versed in philosophy than I am...

-If determinism is true, does it invalidate the possible world model used in modal logic?
Well, determinism means that there is only one possible world, so yes.
-Similar to the first question: If determinism is true, does it mean all knowledge, a priori or a posteriori, is non-contingent? (I think the answer is no, but then I'm not sure about my answer.)
Yes and no. There are facts that are contingent on other facts, but those other facts are certain, so their descendant facts are also certain. It depends on whether you consider contingency to require the existence of other possibilities.
-Given that the computations involved in computing the future of the universe in its entirety exceeds the computational power possible in a universe, i.e. Laplace's demon is impossible to construct, does this necessitate an agnostic position on the free will/determinism debate?
Not exactly. We can't empirically prove or disprove determinism/free will because of that, but there may be a logical a priori proof for or against it. I am determinism-agnostic, but I have logical a priori reason for thinking that free will does not exist: http://www.debate.org...
I'd like to ask a question about your argument... You defined free will as the making of a choice from within, but aren't sexual and cibarious desires from within?
Well, what I mean to say is that even desires that are part of human nature can be traced to the genetic input of your ancestry.
Genetic input is ambiguous unless you can cite a specific example and back it with science. Since it is genetic then scientists can study, identify, and show proof of this so called "genetic input". Point me in the direction of a scientific experiment that has proven this if its something other than just simple genes.
And doesn't India's situation interact, for example, with his internal values and principles to create his decision to liberate India?
All internal values and principles have external origins.
Not gonna support this with an actual argument are you?...like I said, internal values and principles are words and thoughts. If we get them from an external source, what is the source? Is it something other than intelligent minds? Just curious what example you can cite to support this assertion.
SarcasticMethod
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 2:27:11 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/13/2016 10:49:18 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/11/2016 4:14:40 PM, SarcasticMethod wrote:
At 1/11/2016 2:34:24 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 1/11/2016 2:26:58 AM, SarcasticMethod wrote:
At 1/10/2016 6:18:13 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I'm hoping I can get answers from people better versed in philosophy than I am...

-If determinism is true, does it invalidate the possible world model used in modal logic?
Well, determinism means that there is only one possible world, so yes.
-Similar to the first question: If determinism is true, does it mean all knowledge, a priori or a posteriori, is non-contingent? (I think the answer is no, but then I'm not sure about my answer.)
Yes and no. There are facts that are contingent on other facts, but those other facts are certain, so their descendant facts are also certain. It depends on whether you consider contingency to require the existence of other possibilities.
-Given that the computations involved in computing the future of the universe in its entirety exceeds the computational power possible in a universe, i.e. Laplace's demon is impossible to construct, does this necessitate an agnostic position on the free will/determinism debate?
Not exactly. We can't empirically prove or disprove determinism/free will because of that, but there may be a logical a priori proof for or against it. I am determinism-agnostic, but I have logical a priori reason for thinking that free will does not exist: http://www.debate.org...
I'd like to ask a question about your argument... You defined free will as the making of a choice from within, but aren't sexual and cibarious desires from within?
Well, what I mean to say is that even desires that are part of human nature can be traced to the genetic input of your ancestry.
And doesn't India's situation interact, for example, with his internal values and principles to create his decision to liberate India?
All internal values and principles have external origins.
You mind elaborating on what you mean by this?...."have external origins".....since values and principles are words and thoughts, are you saying people HAVE to get them from intelligent minds or do we ,say ,get them from gorillas or hippos or bees or plants? Just wondering where you're getting this assertion from, internally or externally?
Well, some examples of external origins include: the genetic code of your ancestors, the media, your peers, your parents, your teachers &c.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,866
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 9:01:41 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 2:27:11 PM, SarcasticMethod wrote:
At 1/13/2016 10:49:18 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/11/2016 4:14:40 PM, SarcasticMethod wrote:
At 1/11/2016 2:34:24 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 1/11/2016 2:26:58 AM, SarcasticMethod wrote:
At 1/10/2016 6:18:13 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I'm hoping I can get answers from people better versed in philosophy than I am...

-If determinism is true, does it invalidate the possible world model used in modal logic?
Well, determinism means that there is only one possible world, so yes.
-Similar to the first question: If determinism is true, does it mean all knowledge, a priori or a posteriori, is non-contingent? (I think the answer is no, but then I'm not sure about my answer.)
Yes and no. There are facts that are contingent on other facts, but those other facts are certain, so their descendant facts are also certain. It depends on whether you consider contingency to require the existence of other possibilities.
-Given that the computations involved in computing the future of the universe in its entirety exceeds the computational power possible in a universe, i.e. Laplace's demon is impossible to construct, does this necessitate an agnostic position on the free will/determinism debate?
Not exactly. We can't empirically prove or disprove determinism/free will because of that, but there may be a logical a priori proof for or against it. I am determinism-agnostic, but I have logical a priori reason for thinking that free will does not exist: http://www.debate.org...
I'd like to ask a question about your argument... You defined free will as the making of a choice from within, but aren't sexual and cibarious desires from within?
Well, what I mean to say is that even desires that are part of human nature can be traced to the genetic input of your ancestry.
And doesn't India's situation interact, for example, with his internal values and principles to create his decision to liberate India?
All internal values and principles have external origins.
You mind elaborating on what you mean by this?...."have external origins".....since values and principles are words and thoughts, are you saying people HAVE to get them from intelligent minds or do we ,say ,get them from gorillas or hippos or bees or plants? Just wondering where you're getting this assertion from, internally or externally?
Well, some examples of external origins include: the genetic code of your ancestors, the media, your peers, your parents, your teachers &c.
Everything you mentioned, besides genetic code would be an intelligent mind that possesses these ideas. Except for the genetic code, please explain that separately as it is ambiguous and would like to know exactly what genetic evidence has been proven to encapsulate principle and values.
As to the other sources, please explain now how the very first human who introduced the values and principles into humanity came upon this externally. By definition they could not have gotten it from other people or controlled sources by people. So where did the first human get the ideas?
In order for something to be logically sound all scenarios would be covered, if not its fallacious reasoning. What was/were the external intelligent source(s) where the values and principles originated?
SarcasticMethod
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 11:47:10 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 9:01:41 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/14/2016 2:27:11 PM, SarcasticMethod wrote:
At 1/13/2016 10:49:18 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/11/2016 4:14:40 PM, SarcasticMethod wrote:
At 1/11/2016 2:34:24 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 1/11/2016 2:26:58 AM, SarcasticMethod wrote:
At 1/10/2016 6:18:13 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I'm hoping I can get answers from people better versed in philosophy than I am...

-If determinism is true, does it invalidate the possible world model used in modal logic?
Well, determinism means that there is only one possible world, so yes.
-Similar to the first question: If determinism is true, does it mean all knowledge, a priori or a posteriori, is non-contingent? (I think the answer is no, but then I'm not sure about my answer.)
Yes and no. There are facts that are contingent on other facts, but those other facts are certain, so their descendant facts are also certain. It depends on whether you consider contingency to require the existence of other possibilities.
-Given that the computations involved in computing the future of the universe in its entirety exceeds the computational power possible in a universe, i.e. Laplace's demon is impossible to construct, does this necessitate an agnostic position on the free will/determinism debate?
Not exactly. We can't empirically prove or disprove determinism/free will because of that, but there may be a logical a priori proof for or against it. I am determinism-agnostic, but I have logical a priori reason for thinking that free will does not exist: http://www.debate.org...
I'd like to ask a question about your argument... You defined free will as the making of a choice from within, but aren't sexual and cibarious desires from within?
Well, what I mean to say is that even desires that are part of human nature can be traced to the genetic input of your ancestry.
And doesn't India's situation interact, for example, with his internal values and principles to create his decision to liberate India?
All internal values and principles have external origins.
You mind elaborating on what you mean by this?...."have external origins".....since values and principles are words and thoughts, are you saying people HAVE to get them from intelligent minds or do we ,say ,get them from gorillas or hippos or bees or plants? Just wondering where you're getting this assertion from, internally or externally?
Well, some examples of external origins include: the genetic code of your ancestors, the media, your peers, your parents, your teachers &c.
Everything you mentioned, besides genetic code would be an intelligent mind that possesses these ideas. Except for the genetic code, please explain that separately as it is ambiguous and would like to know exactly what genetic evidence has been proven to encapsulate principle and values.
Genetic evidence? Well, I'm not a geneticist, but what I do know is that there exists a genetic influence on the mind. For example, sexual desire is genetic, and it forms the basis of many of our decisions. I won't provide evidence for that, because it's so universally accepted and outright obvious. If that answer dissatisfies you, I suppose I'll go and do your bloody homework for you.
As to the other sources, please explain now how the very first human who introduced the values and principles into humanity came upon this externally. By definition they could not have gotten it from other people or controlled sources by people. So where did the first human get the ideas?
Well, perhaps from the influence of things that weren't human. So, a human looks at a puma and sees it chase a deer, multiple times. The human assumes that pumas naturally chase deer. Besides that, the 'first human' is such an ill-defined idea, because no ape-like pre-hominid had a human baby one day. The process was very gradual. Besides that, non-hominid apes also seem to have the capacity for holding thoughts in their heads, and our pre-hominid ape ancestors have done so as well.
In order for something to be logically sound all scenarios would be covered, if not its fallacious reasoning. What was/were the external intelligent source(s) where the values and principles originated?
I've detailed several. Besides that, I'm using something called inductive reasoning. To give you an example of induction: I see a black raven. Then I see another black raven, and then a third. My friend from China tells me that every raven he's seen in China is black. I take a trip to Italy and see a bunch of black ravens. I go online and see scientific studies about ravens - all of them black. From that, I say: "All ravens are black." I haven't conclusively proved that, and I could very easily be wrong (there may be a rare species of white raven), but it's still reasonable to say that all ravens are black. Similarly, I have never experienced nor heard of any human will that can't be traced back to something external. So, I make the inductive claim, "All wills are external", which then (assuming the definitions I gave in my debate), can lead to "Free will does not exist."
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,866
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2016 1:20:59 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 11:47:10 PM, SarcasticMethod wrote:
At 1/14/2016 9:01:41 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/14/2016 2:27:11 PM, SarcasticMethod wrote:
At 1/13/2016 10:49:18 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/11/2016 4:14:40 PM, SarcasticMethod wrote:
At 1/11/2016 2:34:24 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 1/11/2016 2:26:58 AM, SarcasticMethod wrote:
At 1/10/2016 6:18:13 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I'm hoping I can get answers from people better versed in philosophy than I am...

-If determinism is true, does it invalidate the possible world model used in modal logic?
Well, determinism means that there is only one possible world, so yes.
-Similar to the first question: If determinism is true, does it mean all knowledge, a priori or a posteriori, is non-contingent? (I think the answer is no, but then I'm not sure about my answer.)
Yes and no. There are facts that are contingent on other facts, but those other facts are certain, so their descendant facts are also certain. It depends on whether you consider contingency to require the existence of other possibilities.

I'd like to ask a question about your argument... You defined free will as the making of a choice from within, but aren't sexual and cibarious desires from within?
Well, what I mean to say is that even desires that are part of human nature can be traced to the genetic input of your ancestry.
And doesn't India's situation interact, for example, with his internal values and principles to create his decision to liberate India?
All internal values and principles have external origins.
You mind elaborating on what you mean by this?...."have external origins".....since values and principles are words and thoughts, are you saying people HAVE to get them from intelligent minds or do we ,say ,get them from gorillas or hippos or bees or plants? Just wondering where you're getting this assertion from, internally or externally?
Well, some examples of external origins include: the genetic code of your ancestors, the media, your peers, your parents, your teachers &c.
Everything you mentioned, besides genetic code would be an intelligent mind that possesses these ideas. Except for the genetic code, please explain that separately as it is ambiguous and would like to know exactly what genetic evidence has been proven to encapsulate principle and values.
Genetic evidence? Well, I'm not a geneticist, but what I do know is that there exists a genetic influence on the mind. For example, sexual desire is genetic, and it forms the basis of many of our decisions. I won't provide evidence for that, because it's so universally accepted and outright obvious. If that answer dissatisfies you, I suppose I'll go and do your bloody homework for you.

Just because one desire about a physical and biological need is proven that doesn't therefore translate to all desires being proven as genetic. Getting snippy when your illogical and inconsistent argument gets exposed I see.
As to the other sources, please explain now how the very first human who introduced the values and principles into humanity came upon this externally. By definition they could not have gotten it from other people or controlled sources by people. So where did the first human get the ideas?
Well, perhaps from the influence of things that weren't human. So, a human looks at a puma and sees it chase a deer, multiple times. The human assumes that pumas naturally chase deer. Besides that, the 'first human' is such an ill-defined idea, because no ape-like pre-hominid had a human baby one day. The process was very gradual. Besides that, non-hominid apes also seem to have the capacity for holding thoughts in their heads, and our pre-hominid ape ancestors have done so as well.
"Well perhaps the influence", perhaps isn't logical, and you initially didn't mention animals at all....I will take this as more argument from assertion...
"The process was very gradual" need to see your evidence, ,assertion ad nauseam seems to be what you traffic in,
Please prove that people have proven that an ape has a thought. Unless you're now going to claim that "certain" thoughts aren't made up of words. If you consider a thought as not being comprised of words then i'll merely say more BS.
The first human to POSTULATE AND PRESENT the idea isn't ill defined. Lol. a person who is able to speak the words, that's self explanatory but I guess you have nothing but avoidance of the question as expected. If the puma analogy is correct please cite the principle or value that was created. The word and thoughts that comprise values and principles, according to your initial response, all came from intelligent minds where the values and principles pre-existed. Why are you now claiming observation of animals create words to represent values? Humans see an animal and can then create a word to describe the animal. If the human sees an animal and postulates a value or principle, I'll need to know when you realized you could read another's mind. Do you have proof that a value was created this way? More argument from assertion.
In order for something to be logically sound all scenarios would be covered, if not its fallacious reasoning. What was/were the external intelligent source(s) where the values and principles originated?
I've detailed several. Besides that, I'm using something called inductive reasoning. To give you an example of induction: I see a black raven. Then I see another black raven, and then a third. My friend from China tells me that every raven he's seen in China is black. I take a trip to Italy and see a bunch of black ravens. I go online and see scientific studies about ravens - all of them black. From that, I say: "All ravens are black." I haven't conclusively proved that, and I could very easily be wrong (there may be a rare species of white raven), but it's still reasonable to say that all ravens are black. Similarly, I have never experienced nor heard of any human will that can't be traced back to something external. So, I make the inductive claim, "All wills are external", which then (assuming the definitions I gave in my debate), can lead to "Free will does not exist."
"You have never experienced"....is that an argument to you? More argumentum ad nauseam. You said ALL values and Ps were from extrrnal sources, not that "my(your) opinion based on what I've(you've) experienced gives me(you) the impression".....etc. What you've experienced is another way to avoid the question. Since you're using the "seeing of a black raven", please explain how the first human saw a value or principle.
Feel free to erase and repost your attempt at a logical argument, the one starting with..
I desire a luxury flat....it's completely useless and I'll show u why.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,866
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2016 5:51:15 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 11:47:10 PM, SarcasticMethod wrote:
At 1/14/2016 9:01:41 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/14/2016 2:27:11 PM, SarcasticMethod wrote:
At 1/13/2016 10:49:18 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/11/2016 4:14:40 PM, SarcasticMethod wrote:
At 1/11/2016 2:34:24 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 1/11/2016 2:26:58 AM, SarcasticMethod wrote:
At 1/10/2016 6:18:13 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Here's an answer,
You said no one has ever chosen the desire for food or drink. In your debate link. Desire is a strong wanting or wishing of something to happen. Food isn't a desire, people DO NOT WANT food, people NEED food to survive. You simply are irrational in regards to what you apply desire to. I won't engage someone so clueless about why there is a difference between need and want..... I wouldn't expect a reasoned rejoinder from a person who has this type of reasoning in regards to desire and what it actually means. Hagd
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 2:23:20 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
If determinism is true, you are nothing but a machine that has no will and no mind. Don't worry about.